RANGER AGAINST WAR

Thursday, August 31, 2006

The whole aim of practical politics is to keepthe populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety-- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins--H.L.Mencken__________

The Wall Street Journal reviewed a book called Welcome to the Heartland, an exploration of those who live in America's vast interior, doing those necessary things those with access to a shoreline do not. Specifically, he sees the divide as being between the more rural and urban counties within such states, calling those in the urban-tilting counties, "metros".

Metros probably do metrosexual kind of things, like glossing their hair, driving hybrids and buying Petite Syrah, while their country mouse cousins are out servicing their John Deeres, driving Chevys and drinking Bud Light (someone's got to).

The crux of the piece is that the homies hold onto "traditional modes of thinking (and) living" -- presumably things like, "I'm for America, right or wrong", and "Might makes right"-- whereas the townies are willy-nilly on the absolutism scale. Reviewer Paul Beston fears the metros may not be able to carry the mantle of what being American means into the 21st century.

Says Beston, "One wonders about their fitness for a struggle that seems destined to last a very long time: America's fight against radical Islam. Can the metros summon the self-assurance and conviction to defeat such a fanatical and determined foe or will the effort to do so conflict with "tolerance" their most cherished value?"

Those pansies...wasting time at the Paul Mitchell counter buying their next jar of pommade. Can't they see? Nix the tolerance thing--go whole hog; eye for an eye. Because they wanna die, buddy, so you best summon up the equal zeal. I presume that is the "self-assurance" and "conviction" Beston refers to.

Beston declares, "When the barricades are up and metros are forced to take battle positions, some might prefer to see a homelander standing nearby, locked and loaded."

Sadly, Mr. Beston devolves into the worst manichean thinking. Don't you know, it's the townies who are over there right now in actual battle positions?

His romantic image is hopelessly antiquated. The Green Mountain Boys don't live here anymore. Larry, Darryl and Darryl are may be ready to emerge from the woods, chomping at the bit to release a passel of patriotism, or maybe anti-revenuer sentiment, provided they can find the right end of the blunderbuss. And provided they can heft themselves from their couch positions.

I've been to the heartland, and I've witnessed the absence of anything approximating a healthy diet out there. The only thing locked and loaded out there is the back of an SUV laden with chips and soda after a trip to Costco.

Far as the heartlanders standing by to assemble into a rough and ready band of home-grown protectors prepared to man the ramparts, may I remind you that this is a particularly bad time for militias, witness the Weaver incident of recent past in Idaho and the Freeman incident in Montana.

"Locked and loaded"...I abhor the cliche. And it's kind of ass-backwards, anyway. Sounds mighty tough tough, like something that might save you. Problem is, if push comes to shove, the other side is locked and loaded, too.

The author is seeking succor in a Remington tableaux that has long-since been replaced by a Walmart. The Marlboro Man has died of lung cancer, and buffalo and Indians were an entirely different sort of prey.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Shia Pets

After watching Tim Russert's recent interview (8/26/06) of Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post writer and author of the recent best-seller, Fiasco, I was left unsettled. Thinking about the unfettered spread of Shia dominance in the Mid East region, the unlikely image of the Chia pet came to mind.

For those who don't remember, it resides somewhere in pop consciousness among lava lamps, Ginzu knives (bless you John Belushi) and mood rings. They were terracotta pigs and rams which you'd seed with chia seeds, and they'd grow these fantastic afros of green. You needed to keep it clipped, lest it grow into a kudzu pet, but that was it's beauty--just add a little water, and you couldn't hold it back.

If you listen to Ricks, you realize we've now got a Shia petproblem in the name of runaway Islamic fantacism on the part of subsidized Shiite militias throughout the Mid East region. Ricks' comments were cogent, reasoned and realistic, and I wish to comment on a few of his points.

He was favorable to the U.S. fighting personnel in Iraq and it's easy to agree that the maneuver forces are heroic and dedicated, and my personal dedication is to these personnel.

But he stated that the de facto mission of our military in Iraq has morphed into that of preventing civil war. This seems obvious, but how does that mission addresss America's national strategic objectives, and that at a cost of $1.5 billion a week?

As a military man, I am trying to process the action of trying to prevent a civil war, which is neither a policy nor a mission. It is rather, a knee-jerk reaction that addresses the needs of Iraq while ignoring the long-term national objectives of America.

This violates several principles of war, since U.S. forces can never sieze the offensive to successfully complete their mission as the mission itself is elusive and changes with the daily requirements on the ground. This is reactive, and violates all dictums of war.

In trying to formulate some logic here, I will operate on the principle of charity. With a stretch of the imagination, Sunnis can be seen as insurgents, given one accepts the legitimacy of the present Iraqi government. But Sadr's Mahdi 100,000-man militia is not an insurgent force, merely an unofficial arm of Iranian policy within the current Iraqi government, and they are standing by, possibly ready to fight U.S. forces when Sadr judges the time right.

This is the 900- pound gorilla that U.S. policymakers ignore, and which threatens one of the worst case scenarios, according to Ricks. Should they engage, this would leave the U.S. forces a sitting duck between the Iraqi army and the powerful Mahdi militia.

Sadr's fighters are dedicated to increasing Sadr's power and hegemony in the government of the world's newest democracy, Iraq. The problem is, when they kill Sunnis, what do we call them? As Sadr backs the government, "insurgents" is not the correct term. Is it possible the government loyalists are terrorists? Seems this is possible.

Further, when the U.S. military prevents civil war in Iraq, this benefits Iran and Hezbollah, which gain strength from a strong Shia-dominated Iraq. This is evident by the fact that Jordan and Saudi Arabia are funding and providing intelligence to the Sunnis in Iraq in an effort to counterbalance this phenomenon.

Therefore, U.S. efforts to consolodate governmental power in Iraq (=Shia dominance) goes against what has been long-term U.S. policy in the area, which is concern for the stability of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel, the lynchpins of U.S. security in the area.

A strong Shiite-dominated government in Iraq is a threat to the stability of the region. The question is, why does U.S. policy place the strategic interests of Iraqi mullahs over those of our long-term allies in the region?

The formation of a stable Shia-dominated democracy in Iraq may be fine for Iraq, but it will be strategic mistake to equate this to the best long-term interests of the region, or of the U.S.

What does the $1.5 billion a week buy for the American citizen? Iraqi purple thumbs don't buy no U.S. groceries. Before Hezbollah recently attacked Israel and won the quick and ready support and encouragement of Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, the rationality of U.S. efforts in Iraq was murky. But with those alliances now tried, the waters are a lot clearer. Unfortunately, U.S. policy remains as opaque as ever.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

After confronting yet another press reference to "The Condi Rice Show", I am suddenly possessed of an image of opening night on an off-off-Broadway show (as surely this is amateur diplomacy). The emcee, Condi, is roundly greeted by hecklers throwing rotten fruit at her onstage. She is like a performing dolphin, albeit in in dominatrix boots.

I can hear Brooks' line now: "That whole Second Act has to be rewritten. They're losing the war? Excuse me? It's too downbeat!" Of course, the premise of his show was to write a play that would flop. By "keeping it gay" and making an absurd farce of the unspeakable hideousness, led by die hard believers, the show improbably became a dark hit, but not for the reasons the presenters had hoped.

Though the presenters of the Iraq production are in earnest, the audience can see the show is doomed to close after only a few nights, and the only thing that will change is that the stage now has a lot more rubble on it for the cleaning crew to sweep up.--Lisa

Al Quaida's No KGB

The Wall Street Journal published a mean and derisive op-ed piece recently ("President Taylor", 8/21/06) bemoaning "polarized politics" in the case of Judge Diggs Taylor, who ruled against unbridled spying by the National Security Agency (NSA). She is also scolded in later WSJ issues for her undisclosed support of civil liberties groups (tsk, tsk...not a judge?). The article defends the NSA's warrantless wiretaps of U.S. residents, but it misses the real issue--the administration's policy, which is unconstitutional.

The Journal mistakenly conflates Britain's recently foiled terrorist plot against U.S.-bound airlines with the the NSA's wiretapping project. Says the Journal, "In this environment, monitoring the communications of our enemies is neither a luxury nor some sinister plot to chill domestic dissent." No, but the disconnect is in the identification of "our enemies". U.S. citizens have not proven themselves to be the enemy. Note, I am uneasy with the terminology "enemy" in the terrorist scenario; they are more correctly "criminals".

We must not be snookered in by the witch hunt mentality which is so easy for Americans in a "State of Calamity" (to borrow from the recent SOS sent out by a besotted Phillipines after an oil tanker ran aground; how ironic that they are soiled by oil, too) to fall prey to. That is why we require warrants, and that is why the NSA can gain expedited ones dispensed by special FISA courts. Because we must be reasonably sure there is probable cause for such intrusion, and if there is, the appropriate agencies must be accorded speedy access to execute their work.

The NSA is simply a footsoldier performing as ordered by the lawful chain of command. How embarrassing to call this the NSA spying program, when in actuality it is the administration's unlawful spying program.

Several salient points are ignored in this article. First, there is a proscription against domestic intelligence gathering in the "homeland". Listening to domestic calls without warrants should target the real threat, which is foreign terrorists, not U.S. citizens. Intelligence gathered from this quaint program must then be evaluated and disseminated to complete the intelligence cycle.

Everybody focuses on the collection cycle. But the question is, what is done with the material gleaned from these fishing expeditions? Show the taxpayer the terrorists so apprehended and convicted as a result of this program.

If the government would do so, then a legitimacy of sorts could be claimed for the program, but it just ain't so. If this intelligence is not used in courts of law, then why is it being collected? That is the $64,000 question.

The piece lauds the fact that, "...no one is being denied his liberty and no evidence is being brought in criminal proceedings based on what the NSA might learn through listening to Al Quaeda communications."

Au contraire re. the denial of liberty. The liberty afforded by truly free speech is abrogated when the citzenry operates under the knowledge that they are being/may be monitored. Further, if the evidence is not being used in criminal procedings, then why do it? Is it not being used to apprehend criminals (=terrorists)?

The cost effectiveness of this program is highly problematic. The NSA is a Cold War spy agency aimed at foreign power, and as such, has a secret budget. But as the British, French and Canadians have all proven, Al Quaida is not the KGB, and expenditure of untold billions of dollars to counter this threat is not justified.Contrary to the concluding accusation in the article, nobody will die as a result of Judge Taylor's decision. But good people are dying daily as a result of failed administration policy.

Democracy and Stabilty-- Animals of a Different Stripe

The key question for our country now is, what is our goal in the Middle East? Is it (1) democracy, or (2) stability. These are not the same animal. Possibly, it is (3) oil. Of these goals, 1 & 2 are political, and 3 is economic. The three are not interchangeable and are self-exclusive.

I will discuss the politics of 1 & 2 through a macro lens. Since 1914 the western allies fought two World Wars and participated in the Cold War with a clear political vision shared generallyby the U.S., France, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and the rest of Great Britain's and France's former colonies.

This policy was formalized after WWI with the arbitrary breakup of the former Ottoman/Turkish empire in the Midle East and with the creation of friendly western-supported regimes throughout the region. U.S. and western policy in the region, until the Iraqi invasion of 2002, was based upon achieving stability, not democracy. Stabilty was equated with maintaining the flow of oil to our societies. Realpolitik guided western presence in the area for most of the last century.

France and Great Britain had and have economic interests (oil) that dictated long-term policy in the region. The partitioning enacted by the Balfour Agreements largely ignored local realities, like religious and ethnic delineations, and it is that artificial imposition of affiliation that is playing out in the area today.

Sounds a lot like our current policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, though our current Secretary of State would probably take issue with that asssessment. Ms. Rice would say that we're introducing democracy, while I'd say we're imposing the Balfour on the region once again, ignoring the geopolitical issues roiling in the region.

Since 1921 the Middle East has been a quagmire. Remember that area's population supported Hitler and his totalitarianism. The Imams were sympathetic to and voiced support for Nazism, a policy which they admired. This support caused Hitler to engage in the folly of sending his Africa Corps to a theatre of operations that was a sideline, other than his need for oil.

He was unsuccessful due to the U.S. and Great Britain's military power, which kept the area suppressed until about 1979. This suppression could not be viewed in any democratic terms.

The ouster of the Shah was an indiginous upwelling that repudiated Balfour and western puppets. Saddam's regime goes back farther, but it's the same game. Ditto Libya, Syria and Lebanon. The friendlies in the area are only so because of oil revenues; now that friendship is questionable what with burgeoning oil markets in India, China, Japan and Korea. U.S. dollar diplomacy is no longer relevant, or at least, not essential. The emergence of Shia dominance in this trans-national region is a continuation of the trend toward western repudiation in the region.

U.S. policy preaches democracy, unrealistically expecting political fictions like Iraq to become viable democratic nations. It is fairy-tale thinking, as democracy simply isn't in the mix for a bunch of warring tribesman who don't like each other very much and don't wish to cohere, and like the West as embodied by the U.S. even less, epsecially now that the U.S. is seen as an occupying power.

Lasting nation-states are not formed by external powers. They are created by an upwelling from within the region. Since the Bush presidency is the result of a faulty election, it's easy to understand his belief in the credibilty of phoney elections.

The events in Iraq since the invasion illustrate that, if the West is to continue to be a presence in this region, stability was a more realistic policy for the region.

No Nation Left Behind

George W. was elected on a Republican platform that repudiated Clinton's nation-building approach in the Balkans. In effect, Mr. Bush made a tacit agreement with the voters in 2000 that U.S. foreign policy would not embrace nation building. Fast forward 2006, and see an American voter delivered of a new approach to world affairs: No Nation left Behind.

In fact, now we're even involved in rebuilding Lebanon for some unfathomable reason. Why is the U.S. responsible for helping to finace that mess? In effect, Hezbollah starts an unprovoked, unjustified shoot-em-up--something the Bush crowd understands--and then, following cease-fire, the U.S. agrees to help fund rebuilding efforts.

Doesn't this seem to be financial support of a terrorist movement? U.S. fiscal policy is rewarding their blatantly illegal military style action against Israel. In effect, both sides in this conflict are being financed by U.S. taxpayer largesse.

And please don't tell me that the poor Lebanese are victims of Hezbollah, when the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora comes out after the fighting and publicly thanks Hezbollah for helping to protect the interests of the Lebanese state. (Siniora expressed "gratitude" to Hezbollah and their leader Nasrallah for "sacrificing their lives for their country"; I guess sacrifice is in the eyes of the beholder.) If they are victims, it is in the same sense that the American taxpayer is the victim of the current administration.

It reminds me of a sport I partcipate in--Cowboy Action Shooting. In this sport, you shoot targets on a range in "scenarios"--carefully constructed units, usually scenes taken from popular movies. After you've "shot your round", the targets are pulled back up for the next shooter in the "posse" to try his hand at it. Each shooter hopes that he can benefit by learning from the previous shooters in a given scenario. So it seems in the Middle East. The U.S. is on standby to give everyone a chance at learning the shooting game. Knock the targets down, and we will help pull them back up, so you can have a go on the firing line another day.

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, et al, are part of a larger puzzle. Unfortunately, present U.S. policy addresses the puzzle in a fragmentary way, missing the gestalt.

Terrorism is a multidimensional phenomenon, a fact ignored by our national leadership. Terrorism is political, religious, economic, philosophical, sociological, psychological and military in nature. Unfortunately, the only facet addressed by the U.S. seems to be the military aspect, since it's just too damn complicated otherwise. Let's keep it simple--sound-byte -digestible--and maybe it will go away.

The entire Middle East is obviously a quagmire, and is such for the same reasons that have us so bogged down with the question of Terrorism. U.S. policy always seems to address the wrong issues, neglecting key events.

Poet Rudyard Kipling wrote of Afghanistan 100 years ago: "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier" (from The Young British Soldier). That's a man who apprehended the, shall we say, indomitable nature of the people in that region. Current administration does not burden itself with such ancient history, but it does so at the peril of our country's security.

Friday, August 25, 2006

No Longer the King of His Castle

Thinking about my last posting on the erosion of liberties in our country, one of the more recent subtractions from our previous list of rights grinds on me. It is the broadening of the eminent domain issue to include the allowance of property seizure simply for economic necessity, i.e., if a developer proposes a more profitable use for your land, you may be up the proverbial creek.

I have an image of everyman Ralph Kramden, Jackie Gleason's wonderful bus driver construction from The Honeymooners. At the end of a hard day of being knocked about by the System, Ralph could come home and say with confidence, "A man's home is his castle" as he surveyed his humble domain, and we smiled knowing wife Alice would be his only, albeit formidable, challenge.

However, a recent Supreme Court decision has voided even this most basic concept of proprietary rights. Developers now have more rights to your homestead than you do, if you should be unlucky enough to have local commissioners who covet your home for its economic development potential. And if necessary, every local, state and federal law enforcement agency has the ability to demolish your homestead, as the David Koresh fiasco in Waco illustrated.

Thinking of Ralph's fanciful banishing of Alice to the moon puts me in a planetary mindset. I am wondering: to where do we repatriate all of these dispossessed citizens?

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Grits Ain't Groceries

Its time for me to talk a little philosophy, although I know philosophy "don't cook no potatoes". My editor-in-chief (read know-it-all) wants this blogger to jazz up his site with the new Beta option, to revamp my overall image.

Well, first of all, it's too late for that, and secondly, I flatly refused this option. Since being with the Federal government, I've found that appearance always trumps substance, and I will not go gently into that good night. This is not a dog-and-pony show or a power point presentation--all show and no go. I'm simply trying to present an alternate take on the pablum being forced down our collective throats by almost all of the news media.

Having said that, I want to apologize for getting caught in the quagmire with the whole Haditha episode. I lost my focus, got derailed, bought into the administration game plan. I see where I've focused lately on the details rather than the Big Picture.

Since 9-11, I keep thinking, "What is really happening here?" I try and reach beyond the what-seems-apparent presentations of the media and maintain a disinterested and analytical approach. I try to tame my strong personal reactions to the conventional wisom of the day. Conventional wisdom is an oxymoron.

My central thesis is, what are we as a nation, and do our actions meet the criterion of humanism that is the litmus test of liberal democratic action. This is the essence of America, and I believe it is rapidly slipping away. Haditha is meaningless in the overall scenario.

Why are we as a nation doing what we are doing, and why are good Americans accepting extralegal renditions, obvious torture, unprovoked invasions and regime change, ignoring the Geneva Convention, not to mention supporting undemocratic regimes while hypocritically removing Saddam Hussein because he was, well, evil. (Shouldn't Saddam be enjoying a new incarnation as the darling of the evangelical circuit? After all, the Lord loves a sinner.)

I believe that our blindness to all of these transgressions is the logical culmination of our desensitization as a result of bombing civilian targets in Hanoi, running CIA death squads in Nicaragua, FBI warrantless phone taps on war protestors, IRS harrassment of administration (Nixon) critics, support for Bin Laden, Noriega, Hussein and then later deciding they are evil, and then effectively turning them into embodiments of evil. In short, we enable and exploit the worst of the worst, then use them as bogeymen to scare the American public into complicity with our own questionable policies. A 2-for-1 policy, if you will.

It seems that government of/by/for the people is a thing of the past. Our present Commmander-in-Chief stated recently on Larry King Live that he totally ignores opinion polls, and never even thinks about them. And why should you, really, when you're The Decider? Foolish me--I had always thought that it was the American people who did the deciding via their electoral choices, and the Constitution that was the final arbiter of the legality of actions taken by said representatives.

Do the American people actually want, need or support wars with no endgame which strain our economy, military and moral strength, and offer no positive benefit to the average citizen? Bush stresses Social Security problems, but then spends the funds that should save the system on unrealistic wars. All this while cutting taxes for his cronies and cutting social benefits for our neediest citizens.

Our Federal, state and local governments no longer minister to the well-being of the average citizen, but rather the enhancement of the privileged status of the haves and have mores. And to my chagrin and mystification, the public believes that America is still a democracy.

The erosion of the central tenets of our democracy are all around; things are falling apart. The Irish poet Yeats wrote in his "Second Coming" (1921):

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.. . .

(T)wenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The nightmare is the warfare ignited by religious zealots. Could the "rough beast" be the immature and brutish Toby Kieth form of democracy that we are exporting, and fancy we'll hatch? While Yeats was contemplating the Irish Troubles, his anarchic vison is as relevant today. To borrow from another source of truisms, Pogo, we have met the enemy, and he is us. We're really laying an egg.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

A Promise Made

In a recent news conference, President Bush, responding to a reporter's question, reiterated that we must stay the course in Iraq. Said Bush, "We owe it to future generations to do so."How ironic, since they will be the ones who will pay for his iron will and resolve. They will owe him a great debt, though not necessarily one of gratitude.

Your Flag Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore

This has been bothering me for years now.

It's the little enamel flags that everybody wears, from the President to the lowliest member of the House. Why--can't they remember that they're Americans? I can understand the upper echelon getting a bit fuzzy on the whole thing, what with their recent moves to keep their secret wiretapping powers...

One-Love, Constitution

Let's get together to fight this Holy Armagiddyon (One Love!)So when the Man comes there will be no, no doom(One Song!)--One Love, Bob Marley__________

I wasn't thinking Marley when I wrote the title--just the score in tennis. Thank you Judge Taylor. But you know, Marley's in on this, too. What Holy Armageddon is he talking about? If you buy into it, then this really is a holy war, rather than something we've engineered.

A biblically-sanctioned war, an inevitibility. Apocalyptic horseman and all of it, like the Cavalry riding in at the end of a Western. And I am told by my Baptist friends that folks who ascend after the rapture will be given "glorified bodies," and surely, with the current glut of gluttony which has descended upon the land, we shall verily need those. (As an aside, I asked, and these bodies will not allow us to partake of the sexual act, so we shall become more like our partners in the Coalition [No Sex, Please, We're British].

I tell you, when I hear Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stressing that we are at war, and especially, we are at war with Al Qaida, and that today's ruling by Federal Judge Taylor against the legality of the NSA wiretapping program is not legal, I can't help thinking about Mel Brook's prophetic lyrics from "The Inquisition" in his Historyof the world. A sample:

The Inquisition, what a show.The Inquisition, here we go.We know you're wishin' that we'd go away!So all you Muslims and you JewsWe got big news for all of yous:You'd better change your point of views TODAY!'Cause the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!

The decision to disallow the secret wiretaps is now being appealed by the government.

My conservative friends defiantly say, "What have I to fear? I'm not plotting to bomb anyone? Let them tune in to my calls." But if you don't preserve everyone's rights, then no one is truly free. They would do well to listen to Pastor Niemoeller who famously said after WW II,

In Germany they first came for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.Then they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me —and by that time no one was left to speak up.

The same old argument is voiced by Gonzales and company, namely, that the President has unlimited wartime powers. It is upon this (mis)conception that his assertion hinges.

Perhaps we should be posing different questions. Perhaps the president's assumed powers are phony because the war itself is phony. I mean, are we at war because the president says so? It plays well when Star Trek's Captain Jean Luc Picard declares, "Make it so". But that's Hollywood, and besides, he's French, and we know what a flair for the self-important and the dramatic they possess. In the real world, even the president can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Isn't Congress invested with the Constitutional authority to declare war? This has not been done, as the hostilities that we are engaged in do not qualify for that title. Where is the war? Yes, soldiers are dying, people are dying, but where is this said war? I suggest that the military carte blanche issued by Congress to Bush is overdrawn, and should be canceled. The account should be closed.

The courts speak, and Bush ignores the rulings. Hamdan is still in limbo, and NSA is continuing to abuse the Constitution. Why doesn't Congress speak with their funding controls? Yeah, I know...we're at war with a tactic (i.e., terrorism).

The administration says that the wiretapping program is effective and makes us safer. But that is not the question. The question is, is it legal and constitutional, for these are the touchstones of all that we undertake in this country. To use a very blunt and gross oversimplification, if we were to simply bring a wrecking ball into the troublesome areas of Iraq and Afghanistan and flatten them, there would be no more trouble. But, we would have overstepped our bounds. Those may be "Hama rules," to borrow from Thomas Friedman, but Hama rules are no rules at all.

If we are not for upholding and abiding by our constitutional tenets, then we are lost.

The test for procedural legality lies with the court system. If Constitutional review has become merely a token gesture, then we have betrayed our founding principles. And principles do matter in this war of ideals. Last I looked, we were hoping to export a little democracy. You can't excise it at home, and think to seed it elsewhere, and on fallow soil, at that.

Let's leave emotionalism and partisanship behind and become a nation of law once again. The only hope for correction here is a strong and united judiciary, as the legislative seems to be out gathering brush with the executive. And they're doing one heckuva job of it.

rangeragainstwar: Catching the Presidential Wave

Proxy Patriotism

Does anyone else sense the hypocrisy in today's patrotric country music? Not to say the lyrics are disingenuous; they are not, for that simplicity is the strong suit of country music.I happened to pass by the Country Music Channel the other night and caught a glimpse of Kenny Chesney's video, Who You'd be Today. The tune anguishes over the loss of a loved one, and the video features a young black man on a basketball court, superimposed by a young black boy. The screen then splits, with singer Chesney slouching, hands in pocket, with his back to the screen of the black man shooting hoops, whom we presume is now dead, as the next screen shows what may be a Marine folding the flag into the triangle conformation presented to the survivors following a military burial.The lyrics are mundane. An example, "I wonder what would you name your babies?" Probably something unusual, like DeJuan, or somesuch, judging by the content of the question (surely not something unremarkable, like John or Tim). So I am left with the thought that this punky-looking latter day Billy Idol is basically thanking the black man for doing the dirty job and getting killed, therefore not sireing any more babies with unusual names.Another white country singer who did not do time in the service, Toby Keith, wrote a tune a few years ago about "The Angry American". In it, he says, "This big dog will fight/When you rattle his cage" and, "We'll put a boot in your ass/It's the American way". Big words, from folks who fight by proxy.by Lisa

Formula for Fascism

I love it when a plan comes together. The British, French, Germans and Canadians have all had tremendous success in dealing with Islamic terror cells without violating democratic principles. In all cases, police functioned within legal parameters and the investigations led to legal procedings, as will be the case in this latest British scenario of the not excatly Betty Crocker liquid-mixing terrorists.

The prisoners won't be held in military brigs without charges, and the trials will be fair and legal. This is what it's all about, Alfie.

My recent article about Khalid Sheik Mohammed is illustrative. He could possibly have had relevant intelligence affecting Al Quaida operatives in Western society. Where is he, and why hasn't he been exploited in an open trial?

The low-level shooters are not the threat, though they make for great CNN video clips. If our agenda is to make our society safer, then we must address the threat, which is any future imminent terror scenarios. Just because Bush and his crowd say we're at war doesn't make it so, and it doesn't mean we're at the right one, either.

The Democrats are constantly accused of being weak on terror, but the entire U.S. leadership is guilty of this charge. Billions are spent addressing phoney terrorism in Iraq that is not aimed at U.S. interests, and billions are spent on signals intelligence (SIGINT) gathered via disregard for the U.S. Constitution.

This all could be acceptable if it were effective, but it does not address an actual threat to our society. Potential informants in the U.S. are probably reluctant to come forward because of deportation fears, being swept away to secret prisons, or even fears of torture. The public perceptions of our "dark side" are self-defeating in this, what should actually be a legal battle.

In this world, terrorism could be defined as a federal government over-reacting to every incident with further restrictions on my civil liberties. It is a dismal future painted by a government ever constricting our freedoms in the name of preserving them, but actually, concentrating them into a central head. Sounding more like fascism, or one of those -isms we so arrogantly despise, all the time.

Best National Bog

Monday, August 21, 2006

Pat Tillman, Revisited

3/10/06 I wrote an article concerning Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan. This is now 8/20/06, and everybody from DoD to the NYT has forgotten about the ambiguous circumstances of Tillman's death, and no official report has ever been made public concerning this event.

I still do not understand awarding the Silver Star to Tillman, since purportedly there were no enemy involved in this friendly-fire incident. Surely Pat Tillman is a heroic figure, but Army regulations require close combat with an armed enemy for a Silver Star to be awarded. My comments are based on Josh White's 5/30/06 Washington Post article. There has been scant written on the topic since then.

Get the DoD Out of Dodge

Since the National Security Agency (NSA) warrantless wiretappings have been struck down by a Federal court decision, there seems to have arisen a chant to the effect, "But this program foiled the English based terror plot recently unraveled by British authorities."

My recent posting discussed human intelligence (HUMINT) vs. signals intelligence (SIGINT) and, contrary to the big lie of the day, HUMINT was the source that ultimately foiled this plot. A Newsweek magazine report ("Five Years of Terror",8/21/06) states, "British intelligence had help--presumably one tip and maybe more--from Britain's large and disaffected Muslim community." SIGINT did not ferret out this plot. However, I'm sure that after the HUMINT was gathered and evaluated, the British authorities availed themselves of SIGINT aimed at a specific identified hostile target. That is the correct synergy of the two.

Nobody should question the President's authority to gather foreign intelligence. But that is not the NSA's project when it is eavesdropping on our own citizens. The NSA is an intelligence agency under the Department of Defense (DoD), and should not target U.S. citizens domestically.

If domestic surveillance needs to be done to protect America, then let law enforcement (=FBI) conduct this surveillance, and under appropriate court oversight. When surveillance is successful, it should lead to prosecution under Federal code. If operatives intend to do violence against America, then prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Get the DoD out of the domestic intelligence gathering business. This is not a DoD function.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

One-Love, Constitution

Let's get together to fight this Holy Armagiddyon(One Love!),So when the Man comes there will be no, no doom(One Song!)--One Love, Bob Marley__________

I wasn't thinking Marley when I wrote the title--just the score in tennis. Thank you Judge Taylor. But you know, Marley's in on this, too. What Holy Armageddon is he talking about? If you're Christian and buy into it, then this really is a prophesied war, rather than something we've engineered.

A biblically-sanctioned war, an inevitability. Apocalyptic horseman and all of it, like the Cavalry riding in at the end of a Western. And I am told by my Baptist friends that folks who ascend after the rapture will be given "glorified bodies," and surely, with the current glut of gluttony which has descended upon the land, we shall verily need those. (I asked, and these bodies will not allow us to partake of the sexual act, so we shall become more like our partners in the Coalition [No Sex, Please, We're British] in that respect after the jig's up.

When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stresses that we are at war, and especially, we are at war with Al Qaida, and that today's ruling by Federal Judge Taylor against the legality of the NSA wiretapping program is not legal, I can't help hear Mel Brook's prophetic lyrics from "The Inquisition" in his History of the World. A sample:

The Inquisition, what a show.The Inquisition, here we go.We know you're wishin' that we'd go away!So all you Muslims and you JewsWe got big news for all of yous:You'd better change your point of views TODAY!'Cause the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!

The decision to disallow the secret wiretaps is now being appealed by the government.

Conservatives say, "What have I to fear? I'm not plotting to bomb anyone? Let them tune in to my calls." But if someone's rights are abrogated, all are not free. They would do well to listen to Pastor Niemoeller who said famously after WW II,

In Germany they first came for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.Then they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me —and by that time no one was left to speak up.

The same old argument is voiced by Gonzales and company, namely, that the President has unlimited wartime powers. It is upon this (mis)conception that his assertion hinges.

Perhaps we should be posing different questions. Perhaps the president's assumed powers are phony because the war itself is phony. I mean, are we at war because the president says so? It plays well when Star Trek's Captain Jean Luc Picard declares, "Make it so". But that's Hollywood, and besides, he's French, and we know what a flair for the self-important and the dramatic they possess. In the real world, even the president can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Isn't Congress invested with the Constitutional authority to declare war? This has not been done, as the hostilities that we are engaged in do not qualify for that title. Where is the war? Yes, soldiers are dying, people are dying, but where is this said war? The military carte blanche issued by Congress to Bush is overdrawn, and should be canceled. The account should be closed.

The courts speak, and Bush ignores the rulings. Hamdan is still in limbo, and NSA is continuing to abuse the Constitution. Why doesn't Congress speak with their funding controls? Yeah, I know. . .we're at war with a tactic (i.e., terrorism).

The administration says that the wiretapping program is effective and makes us safer. But that is not the question. The question is, is it legal and constitutional, for these are the touchstones of all that we undertake in this country.

If we were to simply bring a wrecking ball into the troublesome areas of Iraq and Afghanistan and flatten them, there would be no more trouble. But, we would have overstepped our bounds. Those may be "Hama rules," to borrow from Thomas Friedman, but Hama rules are no rules at all.

If we are not for upholding and abiding by our constitutional tenets, then we are lost.

The test for procedural legality lies with the court system. If Constitutional review has become merely a token gesture, then we have betrayed our founding principles. And principles do matter in this war of ideals.Last I looked, we were hoping to export a little democracy. You can't excise it at home, and think to seed it elsewhere, and on fallow soil, at that.

Let's leave emotionalism and partisanship behind and become a nation of law once again. The only hope for correction here is a strong and united judiciary, as the legislative seems to be out gathering brush with the executive. And they're doing one heckuva job.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Free Radicals

Yesterday I saw a photo of all the top intelligence dogs, and CIA head General Hayden was resplendent in his national uniform with his four big stars on his shoulders. However, rather than assuring, the photo frosted me as I began thinking about how lop-sided our national thinking and policies on terrorism have become.Gen. Hayden has no background in terrorism, and so is ill-qualified to head the agency. Further, he is part of the DoD structure that can now dominate an agency that should function as an independent intelligent civilian counterbalance to a runaway "War Department". Questions abound: Who does Hayden work for? Who pays his salary? Who decides if he's doing a heck of a job?Hayden is a Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) kind of guy, someone who believes in surgical gathering of factoids to help crack a case. I believe there is currently an over-reliance on this method of intelligence gathering in our terrorism counteraction work, to the detriment of the more gritty Human Intelligence (HUMINT) work. There has always been a rift between SIGINT and HUMINT advocates. In a terrorism scenario, it would seem that HUMINT should take precedence over SIGINT, as the latter does not focus on the threat, and therefore, is not cost-effective. The net must be cast too wide. The best use of SIGINT is as a adjutant to HUMINT.Sadly, SIGINT appeals to the quick fix mentality demanded by a cowed populace. It looks good; it's high tech, and clean and flashy. You can't bring many of those working HUMINT into the pressroom and expect them to compete with the clean-cut and tidy General. They don't stick up on a presentation board very well. They probably smell bad from too many days afield.Recently, our Coalition of the Willing partner, Great Britain, broke up a terror cell which was targetting U.S.-bound commercial aircraft. The Brits used serendipitously presented HUMINT, passed on by a loyal British Muslim citizen who had overheard the plot and was uncomfortable with his knowledge. Purportedly, he passed this information to a police operative over coffee in a restaurant. NOTE: This was done without the benefit of solitary confinement in a secret prison, and obviously, you can't torture someone in a coffe shop (much beyond an annoying soundtrack, at least.) It was also garnered without the benefit of a $25 million reward. Money can't buy you love. So the intelligence was gathered in a lawful police operation that was highly successful.I've always advocated realistic threat assessment, and this event is a wonderful illustration of that. You can capture enemy soldiers on the battlefield and torture them for three years, but their knowledge won't prevent another airliner debacle. They are low-level soldiers carrying rifles. Rifleman are scary, but they do not plot terror schemes.These prisoners are not Ian Fleming/John Clancy-type operatives. The truly "worst of the worst" are not in Gitmo--they are in the street in France, and Germany, and Great Britain. The threat is westernized radicals that can swim with the fish, in Mao's words. A Taliban rifleman cannot pull off an airliner hijacking. He simply doesn't have the sophistication to negotiate even the simplest functions in our complicated society. He may look shabby and rabid, but he is only a soldier in another man's army. It looks like we're doing something when we incarcerate these soldiers, and we are; we're animating the next generation of Muslim anti-western sentiment. Who runs the Army are the machers...and I'm sure they are also the "mockers" of our foolish reliance on high-tech and good photo-ops.

The down-and-dirty HUMINT of Ian Fleming has been largely superseded by the high-tech SIGINT of John Clancy. The wheels of the giant machine turn much more slowly as a result of the huge and arbitrary processing they must carry out.

Friday, August 18, 2006

Dam(n)ing Thought

8/19/06: CNN just reported that Hezbollah already has rebuilding subsidies in the hands of Southern Lebanese residents whose structures were damaged in the recent bombings. This, two days after cessation of hostilities.

I shudder to think of it, but why weren't they in charge of disbursements after Katrina, vs. FEMA? Now that's a heckuva of a job. Yeah, of course it's filthy blood money and all the rest, but still: they saw the disaster coming (well, the fact they they created it gave them an inside scoop)andthey prepared a triage program. We saw it coming, too, but took the watch-and-wait approach. Possibly FEMA can contract out to Hezbollah. Come to think of it, why not use them instead of Haliburton for all of our shopping needs?

Sunday, August 13, 2006

The New Orange

Here is an article on a group of soldiers coming back sick from their Iraqi tours, and wondering if the constellation of symptoms they are experiencing might not be caused by their exposure to depleted uranium exposure.

I am brought to mind of our problems after Vietnam, and waiting many years before some of those problems were linked to our Agent Orange exposure. Fortunately for present-day combat veterans, at least the government finally acknowledges Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD was not recognized by the DSM (Manual of Psychiatric Illnesses) until 1979, and a presumption of service-connection for combat veterans was only adopted after a Federal lawsuit in the early 1990's.

The VN veterans fought this battle for all veterans. It seems like each new crop of fighters returns only to confront their next battle, which is to gain due recognition from their own government. And it is this one which will likely be a lifelong struggle.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Wars R US

We've played Domino Theory before; the dominoes didn't fall the way we thought then, after Vietnam, and they are not falling the way we'd like them to now. Games are funny like that.

We have a Cold Warrior Secretary of State whose expertise is superannuated. In an inversion of our prior fear--namely, that if one country fell to Communism in S.E. Asia, the rest would follow--we now operate on the presumption that if we knock one country into democracy, the rest will gleefully follow suit.

In a supposedly good-faith effort to staunch the Red Tide 4o years ago, we defoliated Vietnam to flush out and defeat the enemy, or so went the plan. Today in Iraq, there are precisely two trees to obscure our targets, yet our vision is no clearer, nor is our success any more stunning. I never thought that Vietnam would begin to look like an exercize in sanity compared to the latest rungs of madness which we are ascending.

Gateways, Anyone?

The other day on Larry King Live, our very own Condi Rice said that Lebanon must disarm Hezbollah to insure a lasting ceasefire in the area. I reckon Lebanon could model their efforts upon the tactics that the U.S. employed in Iraq to disarm the Mahdi Army (al-Sadr's group)...oops, sorry, that isn't "mission accomplished" just yet.It seems a little disingenuous to ask Lebanon to achieve what the U.S. can't with the might of the U.S. military machine bearing down on the Iraqi baddies. But possibly the Lebanese could make up in ingenuity for what they lack in the sheer weight of materiel or conviction of their Western supporter. I am thinking, offering the Hezbollah something like a weapons buy-back program a la the U.S. police model--that is, if the NRA won't object. A "butter-for-bullets" type of thing. Maybe a fair trade, such as I heard suggested by many well-meaning liberals at the outset of this whole mess. Perhaps a low-end laptop for an AK. Of course, then you'd have to make sure they didn't turn the technology into a weapon to gain new recruits, and where would you get that sort of spyware? Hmmm...I figure the NSA could have a go at it, what with their training in such things in the Homeland.

Fear and Loathing in America

I was recently accused by a reader of being "anti-American" and "self-loathing". Then I read about former CIA contractor David Passaro, accused of beating Iraqi prisoner Abdul Wali to death. Now that's anti-American, and that should be loathed.After more than three years, a government contract employee working for the CIA is finally charged with beating Abdul Wali during an interrogation, inflicting injuries resulting in Wali's death two days later. Testifying in the case in which Pasarro faces up to 40 years in jail, retired Special Forces soldier Brian Halstead--in the room at the time of Pasarro's interrogation of Wali--said Pasarro was "full of rage" and "going off" after it became clear that Wali "was not going to be a font of information," reported MSNBC on August 9, 2006.

Many questions follow on this sad incident, primary in my mind: why do the underlings always take the rap for what seems endemic abuses suggesting a sanctioned playbook of potentially lethal interrogation techniques? It's easy to lop off the menial scapegoats, like Lynndie England and David Passaro, but what if they are merely indicative of a deeper and more pervasive corruption in the conduct of their respective organizations? That's like putting a Band-Aid on a cancer, and the sickness will not go away just because we have temporarily covered it up.I'm quite sure the administration will say that Wali calculatedly died in a clever propoganda ploy to discredit our CIA, since it's a known fact that Muslims don't value life like we do. Some kind of perverse double-black psy-ops was employed here, no doubt. Wali probably used some sort of devious subterfuge to force David Passaro to mercilessly beat him. The Muslims have certainly done enough of a cultural study to know the weasel words. Probably muttered something disparaging about Yo mama, or the Red, White and Blue, or perhaps NASCAR. How can you win against such fanaticism? Of course, I mean Wali, who is among the worst of the worst, I'm sure.I am brought to mind of the inception of these Mid-East hostilities--to our invasion of Afghanistan, and of our early capture of California native John Walker Lindh amongst the Taliban in that country. After hearing of Wali, how can anybody believe that citizen Lindh was legally questioned in a constitutional manner?Misguided, perhaps, but at least Lindh acted according to his conscience, which is more than I can say for some of our CIA interrogators. Kneeling stress positions, waterboarding...surfin' safari, anyone?

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Welcome to our Nightmare

The Hamdan Supreme Court decision has come and gone, and Bush-cum-Gonzales is still requesting Congress pass legislation allowing for military tribunals to adjudicate the fate of the "worst of the worst" being held by the U.S. military. (Hamdan was a driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden.)

But while we're busying ourselves with drivers, I wonder where a guy like Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) is? According to the 9-11 Commission, he was one of the prime movers in planning and executing the 9-11 attack. Also, he executed U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl, according to news and intelligence reports. Supposedly, Sheik Mohammed had(s) ties to Pakistan's ISI, their equivalent of the CIA.

In my own humble computer search, I found ABC news reported the arrest of KSM on December 12, 2002, in Pakistan, and as of March 3, 2003, he was a "guest" of the CIA and being held at an undisclosed location. Read this as a secret prison legally unauthorized and of illegitimate jurisdiction. On March 6, 2003, The Guardian cryptically reported that KSM is "unlikely to see a public trial in any country". It's sounding more Kafkaesque all the time, as the CIA welcomes "K" to their Castle.

Less than one week later--March 9--KSM was supposedly flown to Bagram and George Tenet was reported to have coincidentally made a trip there the same week.

So these are the status reports I could find. Here is a bona fide "worst of the worst" in our custody, someone whose actions have caused the death of Americans. And why are we not clamoring for his trial under U.S. Code in a Federal Court to have him answer for his crimes? Why isn't democracy in action here?

I can think of only four reasons KSM hasn't been indicted in a U.S. Federal Court:(1) He is no longer is U.S. custody, either via CIA release or escape;(2) He has been illegally executed;(3) He has been tortured and the U.S. is unwilling to have this inconvenient fact aired in court; or(4) He has ties to the CIA.But none of these reasons trump his right to fair trial. Endless incarceration without trial is not the hallmark of the U.S. judicial system.

The American public should demand his trial to provide psychic closure to 9-11. Why have we thrown legality to the wind in this War on Terror? To prevail in any endeavor, one has to be for something, rather than merely against something. And if we are not for democracy and the rule of law, then what? Perhaps Justice Stevens was prophetic in his dissent in the recent Presidential voting recount decision when he said, "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!

Why does the world clamor for a cease-fire between the Isrealis and Hezbollah? Yeah, it's a real shoot-em-up between God's Chosen People and his own Chosen Party.Yet it seems that nobody ever mentions or even seriously considers cease fires in Iraq or Afghanistan. Why is one a hot topic, to be halted tout de suite, and the other simply a long-term drag with the concommitant acceptance of daily bloodshed? Is it possible that Saddam was so bad, or democracy is so sacred, that Iraqis must die wholesale to purge their evil from existence? Maybe it's because we're God's Chosen Country; like the song says, "God shed his Grace on Thee." See lyrics of country singer Toby Keith, resplendent in his red, white, and blue flag shirt (which may consititute a desecration of the Flag, but that's another story) for further exegesis of our ruling mandate. (I'm beginning to think that this whole God branding might really begin to get exploited, with everyone from clothiers to food suppliers hopping on the bandwagon; I can see "flax is God's chosen cloth", etc. etc.--ad absurdum. Soon, sadly, to be God's anything will lose its cachet when everyone has a claim to be one of his children. Who will really have the Man's o.k. to trump anybody? May as well not start anything when it's a level playing field, and you haven't the advantage of right solely on your side, right? Well, I mean you could still Crusade, but it'd be an absolute crapshoot as to who'd reign victorious. And why not just be happy with what you've got, for all that?)

The problem we've fostered is that the Shiites have gained dominance in the region since the U.S. invaded Iraq. In effect, the U.S. supports a Shiite coalition in Iraq that is sympathetic and overtly favorable to the Hezbollah Shiites. Obviously, Iran's Shiites benefit too from this Shiite emergence, as I predicted years ago. However, it is the relationship between MalakI (Iraq) and Hezbollah that the press seems to ignore.Here's where we go round the mulberry bush: the Hezbollah Shiites are fighting our main ally in the region, Isreal. The U.S. supports, trains and equips the Iraqi Shiites. There are close ties to Iraq and Hezbollah; the Iranians don't even need to be included in order for Hezbollah to benefit from a sizeable state support. In summation, our Iraqi Shiite allies are supportive of Hezbollah Shiites, who are also supported by Iran, and who are attacking our ally, Israel. So the U.S. is supporting both sides of the killing in Israel. A little Armageddon, anyone?Why does nobody question the support links between Iraq and Hezbollah? The U.S. military is training Iraqi soldiers who, because of the sectarian affiliation, may act in direct opposition to U.S. interests. Therefore, the Iraq War defies all logic. Q.E.D.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

When the Shi(i)tes Hit the Fan

We sanction Israel's fight against its Hezbollah attackers, yet when we invade Iraq, toppling their regime and occupying them, we call those fighting us "illegal enemy combatants". Don't the Iraqis also have the same right to fight and repulse an invading power--namely the U.S.--as the Israelis do in the name of self-defense?Furthermore, if the U.S. calls for a cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel, then why not demand the same for the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan? What hypocrisy for America to suggest to Israel that she begin negotiations with her terrorist attackers, Hezbollah, when we have chosen an exclusively military route to deal with our erstwhile 9-11 attackers. (Of course, the fact that Iraq was not responsible for 9-11 is another unpopular topic.)

Israel certainly has the right to defend itself from outside invaders. Yet we are amazed when the Iraqis resist our forcefully-imposed occupation of their country. We tag them "illegal enemy combatants", but are we blind to the parity here? Don't the Iraqis, too, have the right to repulse an enemy occupyer (that being the U.S.)? After all, it is only our hubris which allows us to see the toppling of Saddam as a good, and something that the Iraqi people would have wanted. So of course, we see the "resistance" we are encountering as just so much chaff on the radar. But, aren't they availing themselves of the same right of self-protection against us that the Israelis are against Hezbollah?

Why don't we demand across-the-board cease-fires? The answer could lie in the fact that the Iraqi and Afghani scenarios are beyond the control of U.S. policy. Forget Amtrak--the current Administration would make a lousy railroad company. It can start the train, but it doesn't have any brakes.